This image from Reddit builds the case that a tank design for Command & Conquer Tiberium Alliances appears quite similar to a Games Workshop-designed tank from the Warhammer 40K series. Games Workshop is known for fiercely defending its intellectual property rights, so there is rampant speculation that if this claim turns out to be valid, legal action is likely to follow. Thanks Strategy Informer.

entr0py wrote on Apr 13, 2012, 01:15:I think publishers just underestimate the market for turn based strategy games. Maybe Fraxis's remake of XCOM will help change that.

The majors nowadays are only interested in big blockbuster titles. The target group for strategy games, for example published by small companies like Paradox, is way too small to produce enough revenue a major publisher needs to cover only the basic costs.

Final Liberation wasn't a 1:1 translation of the rules for Epic 40K (which was never nearly as popular as 40K). It only had, I think, 3 incomplete armies. Its terrain was kind of anemic. Plus it was pretty clunky watching your little guys move around and fire. And you couldn't paint or customize your units. So there was a lot going against it.

I'm just inclined to think that an actual 1:1 tabletop simulation would do for their bread-and-butter tabletop game what the Internet has done for newspapers. Good for consumers, but kind of hard to spin into something that's in their best interest, even as price gougy as they are.

Drezden wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 21:28:I'd love a full on tabletop simulation. Turn basted Strategy based on 40K. But it'll never happen. I think I'm in the minority.

Everyone wants that except Games Workshop. Playing with minis is kind of a big, big hassle. But to be fair, it's hard to imagine it turning out well for them. I'm kind of surprised none of their also-ran competitors have tried it, though.

It's been done before with in Final Liberation 15 years ago. I think publishers just underestimate the market for turn based strategy games. Maybe Fraxis's remake of XCOM will help change that.

Drezden wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 21:28:I'd love a full on tabletop simulation. Turn basted Strategy based on 40K. But it'll never happen. I think I'm in the minority.

Everyone wants that except Games Workshop. Playing with minis is kind of a big, big hassle. But to be fair, it's hard to imagine it turning out well for them. I'm kind of surprised none of their also-ran competitors have tried it, though.

First, this is so obviously infringing that you would HAVE to be trolling to disagree.

Second, it's a sad commentary on GW and their games. They are doggedly pursuing success in a dying medium. Before computer games, tabletop gaming might have been king. But now, unless they have seen it IN a video game, most "gamers" wouldn't recognize a GW property. That doesn't justify someone stealing their designs... but come on! One of the most anti-technology game companies (they won't even allow their games to be SOLD via the web?) is surprised when no one in game design recognizes their models?

They should be using the web/gaming as a new market. Instead we get a handful of decent video game interpretations of their tabletop games and a single mediocre (to be generous) 3rd person shooter... and a hostility to all things electronic.

Tumbler wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 15:55:I really wonder if there isn't a partnership between GW and EA that just isn't announced yet because it's clear they're trying to make these vehicles look exactly like the 40k ones. (Epic 40k to be technical)

No, THQ has exclusive rights to publish videogames in the 40k setting. But I agree that if you stripped off the Command & Conquer logo, anyone would think these were screenshots from a 40k game.

Alamar wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 15:41:Also, taking a quick glance, they look 'exactly the same', but studying them for a minute, you can see quite a few differences

Then it fails the moron in a hurry test.

Alamar wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 15:41:As for a big company being able to prevent this kind of thing... I don't see how... There is always going to be something out there, somewhere, that looks close enough to 'get in trouble'... And if they have no employees that know what <insert cult interest> looks like, how would they know to even question they could look the same? I'm a big fan of intent being more important than the result... I also hate maliciousness : )

Except that's what is required under today's draconian enforced copyright stuff. Anyway, IMHO, its clear that the artist just made an exact duplicate while looking at that model. It was intentional infringement.That's quite different from accidently stumblingly drawing something similar that just boiled up from his subconscious. IANAL

I also thought concept art was not important until I had to actually model 10 * 2 models for 2 races and keep them thematically, scale and functional together (10 for one, 10 for the other race) I only sort-of managed that.

Since then, I would never again do this without a concept artist helping me.

Did you per chance, ever notice indy games with open source (0 profit) models, and how often the models never fit together? That is exactly what happens when you don't have a concept artist guiding people towards a style.

This becomes even more Important because races are often with some kind backstory, unique biology etc. This is not something 3d-modelers usually can do (character art etc.)

You shouldn't under estimate how important it is to have a really good conventional artist in a team. Someone who can draw QUICK sketches, keep them thematically linked, improve upon them. While I work on turning a concept into a game-model ready to import and all, that person could lay out how the next ship should interlink (talking about spaceships, obviously ,p)

That person, is also the one who defines how the texture style looks (something 3D-Artists should probably not do, because while they are *great* people to make textures, they are bad people if the goal is to keep 10 ships of which 9 don't yet exist all look KINDA the same but not ENTIRELY the same ;p (texture wise ,p)

Looking at this I just assumed it was some sort of new 40k game made by EA. Bizarre that they'd copy the tanks so perfectly. The c&c tank even has the twin weapons on the left with a larger battle cannon on the right. Main turret is obviously the same. Even the sponsons are positioned at the rear.

There is a difference in the sponsons though, the 40k tank has guns coming out of the sides of the sponson (below the turret) and the c&c one doesn't. Beyond that it's basically an exact copy.

The ork one is even worse, take note below the turret there is a weird little flexible tube thing on the ork vehicle and the c&c one has that same exact tubing in the same place.

I really wonder if there isn't a partnership between GW and EA that just isn't announced yet because it's clear they're trying to make these vehicles look exactly like the 40k ones. (Epic 40k to be technical)

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 15:34:As a 3d-modeller I always demand concept art from an concept artist now when I work in a game project or I give them the clear answer that there is a chance the res models will not be what you want, but you will have to pay for them anyway. Exactly to avoid this issue. Then again, I am freelancer so I can choose what to do.

But Dmitri_M you really made a superb point. This is exactly what likely happened here. No concept artists. It doesn't help that concept artists learn to model (a very dangerous combination) so companies think they can forgo dedicated concept artists and dedicated modelers. But it is VITAL that modelers do NOT draw/find the concepts for their models themselves. A second "look" at concepts and interpretation is often what shifts a concept away from "looks like this from that" into a unique model.

I'm not in this field, so I defer to your opinion... But personally, I always thought concept artist was a wasted position... Or rather, something that any other artist or modeller should also be able to do...

And that's mostly ignorance, and I understand why there is a distinction... As an example, I can model... I can draw/copy... But to create something from scratch, just seems so foreign... In short, I have technical, not artistic, skills...

On topic... I love the title Blue... That's half the reason I keep coming back : )

And I think both example tanks look pretty damn similar, but again, I admit my ignorance about tank design; I don't know which portions 'every' tank would have (which could include the oddly similar rivet patterns). Also, taking a quick glance, they look 'exactly the same', but studying them for a minute, you can see quite a few differences (but I still think they look 'too' similar)...

As for a big company being able to prevent this kind of thing... I don't see how... There is always going to be something out there, somewhere, that looks close enough to 'get in trouble'... And if they have no employees that know what <insert cult interest> looks like, how would they know to even question they could look the same? I'm a big fan of intent being more important than the result... I also hate maliciousness : )

As a 3d-modeller I always demand concept art from an concept artist now when I work in a game project or I give them the clear answer that there is a chance the resulting models will not be what you want, but you will have to pay for them anyway. Exactly to avoid this issue. Then again, I am freelancer so I can choose what to do.

But Dmitri_M you really made a superb point. This is exactly what likely happened here. No concept artists. It doesn't help that concept artists learn to model (a very dangerous combination) so companies think they can forgo dedicated concept artists and dedicated modelers. But it is VITAL that modelers do NOT draw/find the concepts for their models themselves. A second "look" at concepts and interpretation is often what shifts a concept away from "looks like this from that" into a unique model.